News
SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 missions likely two back-to-back Starlink satellite launches
Hinted at by a launch photographer and confirmed by an article published on NASASpaceflight.com, it appears that SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 launch is at least a month away and will likely be the company’s first operational Starlink mission, deemed “Starlink 1”.
Barring a surprise mission in the interim, this means that SpaceX is going to have a gap of at least two months between customer launches, something the company has not experienced since mid-2015 – more than four years ago. As such, it’s an extremely happy coincidence that SpaceX may now have internal Starlink launches to fill lulls in its commercial launch manifest.
Like any production and services-focused company, SpaceX incurs operational costs whether or not its services are being used – employees, leases, supplier contracts, and more still need to be paid for, facilities still need upkeep, long-lead production can’t simply pause, and many other recurring costs can’t be avoided. In theory, supplementing commercial launches with internal launches thus limits SpaceX’s downtime and effectively increases overall capital efficiency.
Flatsat revolution
Enter Starlink, a colossal ~11,800-satellite broadband internet constellation nominally designed, manufactured, launched, and operated by SpaceX. On May 23rd, after approximately one week of delays, a twice-flown Falcon 9 booster lifted off for the third time in support of SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch, an unparalleled 60-satellite beta test known internally as “Starlink v0.9”.
Upsetting all expectations, SpaceX managed to fit en incredible 60 high-performance Starlink satellites into Falcon 9’s unchanged payload fairing – middle of the ground in terms of usable volume. Weighing anywhere from 16,000 kg to 18,500 kg (35,300-40,800 lb), SpaceX’s very first dedicated Starlink launch also crushed the company’s record for heaviest payload launched by several metric tons.
In a fascinating turn of events, SpaceX ultimately sided with a largely unprecedented form factor for its operational Starlink satellites, resulting in ultra-thin, rectangular spacecraft that can be stacked like cards and feature their own integrated locking and stacking mechanisms.
A paradigm shift
According to NASASpaceflight.com, SpaceX’s first and second operational Starlink missions (Starlink 1 and 2) are scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) October 17th and November 4th, while a similarly trustworthy source puts Starlink 1’s launch date NET “late October”.
Given that Starlink v0.9 was effectively a massive flight test meant to tease out issues with the satellites’ designs, any new any satellites launched in the coming months will have almost certainly been manufactured, assembled, and prepared for flight in just a few months. Unfortunately, out of the 60 satellites launched in May 2019, 10 (16.5%) have been decommissioned for unknown reasons, although the remaining 50 (83.5%) have reached their final orbits and are believed to be in good health.
Put simply, a >15% failure rate is not acceptable for an operational constellation of thousands of satellites, meaning that SpaceX will likely continue to refine and improve its Starlink design before truly ramping up production and launch cadence. Unless the issues leading to multiple satellite failures were relatively simple or expected, the company’s next one (or two) Starlink launches could be closer to “v0.95” than the first fully operational missions. Time will tell.
For now, the fact alone that SpaceX reportedly plans to complete its 180th high-performance satellites barely nine months after beginning high-volume production is dumbfounding. Incredibly, building 180 satellites in 9 months is, by all means, a low-volume run relative to what SpaceX will need to achieve to launch its full Starlink constellation by late 2027. A production rate of 180 Starlink satellites per month is much closer to the necessary production and launch cadences needed for SpaceX’s deployment milestones.
Regardless, for the time being, it appears that odds are good that SpaceX will be able to make good on its promise of launching 2-6 Starlink missions in 2019. According to SpaceX, Starlink can begin offering serious commercial broadband services in regions of the northern US and southern Canada once 360 satellites are safely in orbit.
If SpaceX manages to launch two quasi-operational Starlink missions in the span of a month (Oct-Nov), that initial operations milestone could come just a few months into 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
